Papua Indonesia

Current REDD+ Program Progress

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy
--

In COP XV in Copenhagen in 2009 the Governor of Papua expressed his commitment to supporting the Indonesian President’s commitment to reducing the country’s carbon emission by 26% by itself or by 41% with international support in 2020.

He was committed to:

Preserving at least 50% of Papua’s conversion forests intact

Not using primary forests or areas (peatland) with high conservation and cultural values for oil palm plantation or for large-scale land use

Ensuring that oil palm plantations or other land uses adopt standard best practices

Diversifying rural/community’s economy, including aid for clean energy development, supporting development of green energy, of small- and mid-scale enterprises in the field of community forestry and industrial plantation forests.

With such a commitment, it is estimated that Papua will contribute to 15% of Indonesia’s carbon reduction target without international support in 2020.

REDD-Related Regulations

Since 2006, Papua has introduced a new policy on forest conservation management. Through sustainable forest management and use, the policy aims at alleviating poverty and improving Papua’s economy through the forestry sector. Basically, the policy consists of the following:

Returning of forest ownership right to communities

Ban on timber exportation

Accelerated development of household industries and logger communities

Revocation of forest concessions (HPHs), active or not, unless they are willing to develop the forestry sector in Papua

Law enforcement through sufficient number and capacity of forest rangers and community’s awareness raising

Plan to dedicate all forest types in Papua to save the earth and human’s future.

REDD+ Related Regulations
--
Content Currently Unavailable
Spatial Planning
--

The purpose of the provincial spatial plan is the one determined by the provincial government, and becomes the guidance for the achievement of the vision and mission of the long-term development with regard to spatial use, which support the creation of the national spatial use that is safe, convenient, productive and sustainable, based on the archipelago concept and national security. The vision of Papua’s long-term development cited from the Provincial Long-Term Development Plan is: a socially, culturally, economically and politically independent Papua. The vision is to be achieved through 5 provincial development missions, namely:

To create social independence through improved human resources to be able to compete at national and global level; possession, utilization and development of science and technology; and just and evenly distributed development.

To create cultural independence through development of religious, customary and women institutions, of the community’s identity, and improvement of performing and innovative cultures.

To create economic independence and regional development through improvement of economic development and of infrastructure building, sustainable management and utilization of natural resources, spatial and regional planning, increasing provincial revenues and equal distribution of community’s incomes, and independent, sustainable and accountable management of natural resources.

To create political independence through increasing democratic community’s participation, improvement of government staff’s quality, increased community’s awareness and commitment to maintain the nation unity based on the law.

To create independence of Papua’s indigenous people through improvement of their life quality and competitiveness; increasing recognition of Papua’s customary and cultural values through recognition of customary rights, of customary law communities, and of customary law; improved capacity in economic, social political, technological field; and greater dignity and status of Papua’s indigenous peoples.

The spelling out of the development vision and missions in the spatial plan cannot be separated from the strategic issues identified, as follows:

General regional development issues:

Absence of agreement about administrative boundaries of districts/cities.

Gaps in development of areas and regions.

The need to introduce a national boundary area management, using security and prosperity approaches.

Environmental issues:

Climate change and global warming phenomena

Increasing environmental degradation, both of marine and terrestrial ecosystems,

The administrative areas of some newly-established districts lying mostly in national parks, protected forests and conservation areas

The need to protect peat lands.

Social cultural issues:

Absence of village inventory (village is a representation of the existence of Papua’s communities)

The lowest rank in Human Development Index

Absence of mapping of ulayat (customary) land.

Economic issues:

Integrated transportation system connecting service centers is limited

Management of natural resources has yet to generate sustainable benefits to the population

The need to consider disaster-prone areas in regional and provincial development

Management of special autonomy fund has yet to be optimized to develop communities’ and institutions’ independence capacity to support sustainable development.

Based on the development vision and missions and by considering the strategic issues identified, the provincial government formulates its spatial use vision, i.e. A Sustainable Spatial Use to Support Integrated, Harmonious, Prosperous and Independent Development.

The spatial use vision is spelled out into the following objectives:

To create an integrated national, provincial and district/city spatial use while taking local wisdom into consideration.

To create integrated utilization and control of terrestrial, marine and air space, including space inside the earth.

To create a harmony between natural and man-made landscapes

To create balance and harmony in interregional development

To create balance and harmony in intersector activities

To create better wellbeing and life quality

To create social, economic and cultural independence

To create dynamic state’s protection and safety, and national integration.[1]

Stakeholder Engagement
--

In its implementation, REDD upholds human rights safeguards, reduces poverty, and protects the rights of indigenous peoples, including protecting biodiversity (Down To Earth, 2008). Papua’s forests are considered appropriate for pilot site for REDD implementation in Indonesia due to, among others, the relatively low degradation rate. However, Papua can be said to be Indonesia’s least developed province. It had the highest poverty rate, 38.7%, in 2007 according to BPS. The problem is that most of the population still lives in strong ‘customary bond’, particularly those living in and around forests. Therefore, the implementation of REDD in Papua faces a unique challenge. Papua’s forest area stands at 42,224,000 hectares, representing 33.25% of Indonesia’s total forest area. Some of the population lives in and around the forests. To the Papuans, forests are the source of life and of livelihoods integral to their daily lives.

Conceptual obstacles in REDD implementation offer opportunities for Papua’s indigenous peoples to have greater rights to forest resources and to improve their wellbeing.

1. Firstly, the right of the indigenous peoples to forests should be prioritized. Without their consent, REDD cannot be implemented.

2. Secondly, forest conservation means ensuring sustainability of non-timber forest products, which have long become the source of livelihood for people living in and around forests. This means that REDD implementation will return the opportunities to the people to generate incomes from non-timber forest products.

3. Thirdly, compensation from REDD implementation is a funding source for empowerment and better wellbeing of the indigenous peoples.

4. Fourthly, the involvement of the indigenous peoples in REDD implementation offers an opportunity to revitalize community’s local wisdom, which will in turn maintain the sustainability of forest resources.

REDD Programs & Safeguards[1]

REDD+ Programs

REDD strategies conceived or in process of conception to reverse deforestation and degradation

The development of the Provincial REDD program is an ongoing and continuous process, requiring continual interaction with the Central Government and developing national and international policies while developing and adapting new and existing regional policies. Papua’s REDD program is part of the province’s overall Low Carbon Development Strategy which originated with Governor Suebu’s ‘Green Vision’ and commitment to reduce deforestation starting at the COP13 in Bali. 

  

Maintain at least 50% of Papua’s forests intact

2. Stop using primary forest and other areas that have high cultural, carbon and / or conservation value for the cultivation of oil palm or large scale agriculture

3. Ensure large scale agriculture is developed based on industry standard best practices.

4. Ensure oil palm plantations follow industry standard best-practices.

Support economic diversification including clean energy development, small and medium enterprises in the field of community forestry and forest industry.[2]

The Agrarian Law of 1960 - Indonesian forestry jurisdiction and natural resource management. Guiding regulation for recognizing and awarding types of rights over land. - Functional

The Forestry Law of 1999 - Empowers the Department of Forestry to determine and manage Indonesia’s Kawasan Hutan (Forest Zone). Outlines forest function. - Functional

Permenhut No. 68/2008 - Describes the permission and approval procedures of REDD’s demonstration activities - Functional

Permenhut No. 30/2009 - Regulates procedures on the implementation of REDD including requirements that should be fulfilled by developers, verification and certifications, and terms and conditions of REDD’s implementing bodies - Functional

Permenhut No 36/2009 - Regulates the permission procedures of REDD projects through carbon sequestration and storage. It includes revenues sharing, application, collection, depositing, and utilisation procedures of revenues from REDD projects - Semi-functional / under review.

P.20/Menhut-II/2012 – on Forest Carbon Implementation

P.18/Menhut-II/2012 dated 11 April 2012 – on Procedures for Assessing Compensation for Plants Rehabilitated from Forest Use and Changes in Forest Use

P.19/Menhut-II/2012 dated 11 April 2012 – on Second Amendment to Forestry Minister’s Decree (Permenhut) No. P.62/Menhut-II/2008 on Work Plan for Utilization of Timber Products from Industrial Plantation Forests and People’s Plantation Forests

P.17/Menhut-II/2012 dated 8 April 2012 – on Technical Guidelines to People’s Nursery

P.13/Menhut-II/2012 dated 2 April 2012 – on Provision of Online Information on Forestry Licensing

P.14/Menhut-II/2012 dated 8 April 2012 – on Guidelines to Implementation of Forest and Land Rehabilitation in 2012

P.15/Menhut-II/2012 dated 8 April 2012 – on General Guidelines to Development of Conservation-Based Rural Forestry

P.16/Menhut-II/2012 dated 8 April 2012 – on Guidelines to One-Billion-Tree Planting in 2012

P.12/Menhut-II/2012 – on Second Amendment to Permenhut No. P.32/Menhut-II/2009 on Procedures for Developing Technical Plan for Forest and Land Rehabilitation in Riparian Areas (Rtk RHL-DAS)

Government Regulation No.37 of 2012 dated 1 March 2012 – on River Basin Management

P.6/Menhut-II/2012 dated 10 February 2012 – on Devolution of Part of Governmental Affairs in the Field of Forestry in 2012 to 33 Governors as Government’s Representatives

P.7/Menhut-II/2012 dated 10 February 2012 – on Devolution of Part of Governmental Affairs in the Field of Forestry in 2012 to Berau Regent, Malinau Regent, and Kapuas Hulu Regent in the framework of REDD Demonstration Activities

P.4/Menhut-II/2012 dated 26 January 2012 – on Amendment to Permenhut No. P.48/Menhut-II/2010 on Ecotourism Development in Reserves, National Parks, Forest Parks and Natural Tourism Parks

P.1/Menhut-II/2012 dated 9 January 2012 – on Guidelines to Province Level Forestry Planning

Institutional Framework[2]

Content Currently Unavailable
Content Currently Unavailable
Content Currently Unavailable

REDD+ Safeguards

Target population and rights recognition

Social groups reached by the REDD Program and number of people directly benefited

The social groups targeted for outreach by the REDD Program are a) indigenous peoples who have traditional ownership rights to land / forest areas impacted by the REDD Program and 2) social groups (who may or may not be indigenous peoples) who directly impact the land / forest areas through their daily activities (both legal and illegal, i.e. collecting firewood, logging, conversion to agriculture, grazing). Other social groups include those who rely on the supply of forest products to support their own industry (i.e. small-scale logging mills / manufacturers, agricultural industry, supply of meat). In this way the REDD Program is aimed at benefiting those social groups who directly impact the forest and those groups who act as part of the ‘supply-chain’ of forest products. The number of people directly benefiting is not able to be quantified at this time because the program itself is still under development / implementation phase characterized by pilot projects identified.   

Procedures taken by proponent and evidence that REDD Program acknowledges the rights and role of indigenous peoples and local communities

The Provincial Government of Papua, under Special Autonomy Law, has developed a number of Provincial regulations implementing the Special Autonomy Law which recognize the traditional rights of the People of Papua to the Forests of Papua. 

Needs identified for rights recognition improvement

There is a need for analysis of current legal frameworks (national and regional) to address rights recognition (incorporating land and carbon ownerships rights) in particular as it relates to local and indigenous communities and regional and special autonomy laws.  This framework would need to be harmonized across provincial and central government regulations and ensure that communities and indigenous peoples properly benefit from REDD+ activities. Benefits need to be fair and ‘real’ (e.g. real impact on local community and standard of living) and a transparent mechanism for distribution need to be achieved. Furthermore, work is needed to find mechanisms and pathways for communities to be more involved in early stage project development, not simply as project beneficiaries. This should go hand in hand with rights recognition of communities over forest areas. Finally, a recognised procedure is needed to be able to acknowledge rights, such as participatory mapping supported by legal mechanisms, e.g. Hutan Desa and other mechanisms (Gubernatorial / Regency Decrees, sub-national legal mechanisms). There are still many challenges to overcome community needs / rights and the central government land classification / designation.  REDD can be used to strengthen community and indigenous rights recognition.

Land/forest tenure administration and relation with REDD

Legal support and protection of forest tenure

As outlined in point 9.3, currently, the only way to establish forest tenure which could be used to develop either voluntary or compliance REDD projects (i.e. establish long term carbon rights) is via the Central Government regulated system of land tenure licenses / permits.  

Clear responsibilities, capacity and authority for forest tenure administration

Authorities are devolved from the National Forestry Law and regulated by the system of land tenure licenses / permits outlined previously. In all cases, permits granted by the Governor / Regent (Bupati) are subject to approval / recommendation by the Minister. Subsequently, in almost all cases, the final authority for forest tenure comes in the form of a Ministerial Decree (forest utilization license in the case of forest-based activities issued by the Minister of Forestry or land use permits for oil palm issued by the Minister of Agriculture).   Under the Special Act of Autonomy 23/2001, the special cultural relationship between the Papuan people and their land is acknowledged and this has been used consistently by the Governor to argue that the forest resources belong to the people and they have the right to determine forest use. However, this is not yet accepted by the Ministry of Forestry whose objection is played out through lack of clear decision making, including in the acceptance of the final forest land spatial plan currently under discussion.

Actions planned or developed by governments to solve issues related to land tenure uncertainties within REDD priority areas:

The focus of the Papua provincial government has been to develop and pass several regulations implementing special autonomy as outlined below (and also in point 5).

 - Perda Provinsi Papua No. 6 Tahun 2008 – Conservation of Living Environment

 - Perda Provinsi Papua No. 20 Tahun 2008 – Customary Court

 - Perda Provinsi Papua No. 21 Tahun 2008 – Sustainable Forest Management

 - Perda Provinsi Papua No. 22 Tahun 2008 – Protection & Management of Customary Community’s Land Resources 

 - Perda Provinsi Papua No 23 Tahun 2008 – Customary Land rights & Civil Rights of Customary Community

Relation of forest tenure solving and REDD objectives/actions

The relation between forest tenure and REDD is central to REDD objectives / actions and importantly (being one of the objectives) equitable benefits sharing (as the process to establish tenure is reflected in the parties receiving benefits under the current mechanism). This point is also reflected in national vs. regional REDD objectives, in the sense that the current focus on meeting national emissions reductions should not be at the expense of meeting regional development. The harmonization of these factors is inherent in the Provincial Spatial Plan, although the impact of the impending (Norway-backed) moratorium will also need to be addressed in terms of REDD objectives / actions and the impact of the moratorium on tenure. 

Recognition of communities and indigenous peoples’ rights

The recognition of communities and indigenous people’s rights is considered a top priority within Provincial REDD development. It is also an extremely complex issue given its relationship to the National Forestry Law and lack of clarity regarding recognition of traditional rights in the Indonesian legal context. It is widely hoped that through development of FPIC mechanisms the recognition of community and indigenous people’s rights will be able to be strengthened.  

Participation of communities and indigenous peoples in forest tenure definition

Forest tenure definition is established by the Forestry Law 41 in 1999 (Forestry Ministry (Central Government)). Under this law, community / indigenous forest is incorporated as a sub-set of State (national) Forest. There are various NGO’s and community groups active in lobbying this definition and asserting stronger participation of communities and indigenous people’s groups in this definition and its impact on REDD (and REDD’s alternatives). 

Definition of legal aspects related to property and rights to forest carbon in REDD project areas.

As outlined in 9.3 property rights (i.e. rights to land) are administered by the Central Government and are required prior to establishing rights to forest carbon under regulation P.36. Currently, voluntary REDD project developers are using ‘Utilisation of Wood Forest Produce’ (IUPHHK) licenses to establish carbon rights (although none have yet sold verified carbon credits) and it is widely agreed (although not yet established) that legislated community (Hutan Rakyat) and indigenous ownership (Hutan Adat), both by Ministerial Decree, could be used to establish both property and carbon rights for communities under a voluntary scheme. 

Conflict resolution measures in place

The provincial bylaws have been established, i.e. Perda Prov Papua No. 20, 22 and 23 - 2008

Needs identified

There is a need for an independent legal review of land / forest tenure administration in Indonesia including:

 - Review of national regulations

 - Relationship with provincial regulations

 - Legal basis for traditional community (adat) land areas

 - Review of overlapping regulations

 - Review of boundary designation

Transparency and participation mechanisms

What actions have been taken to guarantee free, prior and informed consent?

The Provincial Government of Papua is taking FPIC very seriously and is encouraging project developers to carry out FPIC in project areas and encouraging a broad range of government participation. However, the lack of a common standard for FPIC and funding for socialization and training in FPIC means that institutional capacity is still lacking and supporting regulations to ensure FPIC are not yet being developed. 

Briefly describes mechanisms for consultation and continuous participation addressed

A number of conferences and seminars have been carried out at with REDD has been presented and discussed by representatives of wider society, NGO’s, universities and private sector. However, these initiatives are quite broad and to date there is no single mechanism or procedure for project specific consultation and participation. Such a procedure / training in this area would be very useful in supporting REDD development. 

Information on transparency of REDD program

As REDD becomes more widely known in Papua, there is a need to be able to provide clear and transparent information provincially and locally. A system for this needs to be developed together with all tiers of government – including the central government. 

Needs identified for improvement in participation and transparency?

A standard for FPIC needs to be developed and supported by implementing regulations. The FPIC ‘standard’ should comprise a manual / formal guidelines with definitions, standards and procedures, including reference to who should be involved and responsible for different areas. As a note, all provinces are interested in applying FPIC to all investments, not only REDD+, so this would make FPIC a valuable tool which can be developed under REDD+ and used in other circumstances / investments.

Benefit sharing mechanisms

Describe the broad picture of how REDD program addresses social and economic well-being of forest dependent communities 

Currently, the REDD program is seeking to find the best ways through which to address the social and economic well-being of forest dependent communities. FPIC is a key part of this, but so too is certainty on national policy and international carbon markets. Without certainty on carbon markets (and supporting national regulations) it will not be possible to say that REDD can address the economic well being of forest dependent communities as it will not be possible to value the communities principle ‘asset’ (carbon). Naturally, social and economic wellbeing are interlinked, with pathways to support social wellbeing needing to be supported by economic drivers / mechanisms. 

Description of the PES or benefit sharing mechanisms currently in place or planned (concrete elements)

Currently, the only legislated benefit sharing mechanism in Indonesia is as outlined in Forestry Ministry Decree P.36/Menhut-II/2009 (Central Government) which stipulates the procedures for granting business license for the utilization of absorption and/or storage of carbon in production forest and protected forests. This license must be held in order to establish carbon rights and cannot be held as an independent license – it must be held in addition to a separate license (outlined in the below table as permits) through which the license-holder establishes an underlying right to the land itself. The first 4 license types are ‘Utilisation of Wood Forest Produce’ (IUPHHK) licenses including natural forest logging (HA), plantation forests (HT), ecosystem restoration (RE – note: this can also be used for PES), and community plantation forest (HTR). Points 5-8 refer to legislated community and indigenous ownership (note this ownership is not inherent / automatic – community / indigenous groups would need to attain Ministerial Decree in order to establish a legal right to the land which could be used to ascertain carbon rights under P.36 (with the possible exception of Papua and Aceh, although this is ongoing). 

Note that P.36 is currently under review pending additional input from the Ministry for Finance. No distributions have or can be made under this scheme. 

Describe evidences for participation of stakeholders in the development of the mechanisms

P.36 was widely hailed as the first benefit sharing mechanism legislated by any national government. However, it is widely considered that the mechanism could have benefitted further from more comprehensive stakeholder participation, both from within Government itself and affected stakeholder groups. As mentioned above, this regulation is currently under review.  

Needs identified

A comparison of different benefit sharing mechanisms being discussed / developed internationally. This would be most effectively done by coordination of the GCF Secretariat with GCF members. Important points would include more detailed analysis of the realities of potential beneficiaries (i.e. ‘on the ground’) and technical mechanisms on the checks and balances on the flow of REDD funds and benefits. Benefits sharing also needs to be supported by clear community tenurial and carbon rights and needs to clearly reflect (if not specifically document) the roles and responsibility of each party (including risks and opportunity costs). Further discussions are needed and it would be positive for GCF to support these discussions.

Environmental

Ecosystem Services

In addition to the high biodiversity at taxonomic level, Papua contains diverse ecosystems, from coral reefs, mangrove forests, savannah and monsoon forests, lowland tropical forests to montane and alphine ecosystems (5,000 m above sea level).

Myers (1988) stated that some 90% of woody plants in New Guinea (including Indonesia’s Papua) were endemic. Out of 50 bird species found on the island, 50% was endemic to Papua.

Up to now, no uniformity has been in place with regard to classification of the ecosystem types in Papua, and neither have their respective areas and distribution. Despite this, Petocz (1989) distinguished Papua’s terrestrial ecosystems into 7 main ones:

• Mangrove forests

• Swamps

• Lowland tropical forests (0-100 m)

• Lower montane forests (100-1,000 m)

• High montane forests (3,000-4,000 m)

• Alphine ecosystem (> 4,000 m)

Some of the existing classifications do not provide clear limitation of ecosystem types. This nonuniformity poses some problems, particularly when analyzing forest degradation rate. Most general and ecosystem distribution analyses are still dominated by forest cover analyses, and despite this, no agreement has been reached about classification of forest types and their respective distribution. The output of the analyses of satellite images during 1999-2000 by the Forestry Planning Agency (Badan Planologi), Forest Watch Indonesia and the Conservation International showed that the total size of Papua’s forests stood at 40,856,294,871 hectares. Based on forest functions or uses, Papua’s forests are classified into 6 groups, whose respective sizes are shown in Table 2,

Biogeographically, Papua is divided into 4 main regions (Petocz, 1989), comprising 9 biogeographical subunits, namely:

1. Eastern foothills, comprising the Cyclops Mountains; the Foja- Gauttier Mountains; and the van Rees Mountains.

2. Bird Head Peninsula, comprising the Tamrau and Arfak Mountains; Wondiwoi Bay and the Wandamen Mountains.

3. Southern areas, comprising the Fak-Fak Mountains and the Kumawa Mountains; and

4. Offshore islands, i.e. the islands of Waigeo, Batanta, Salawati, Misool and Yapen; as well as some in the ocean such as Biak- Supriori and Numfor.

Various documents on global conservation strategies show that Papua is one of the priority areas for conservation. The analyses by conservation experts and scientists at the Conservation International conclude that there are only three tropical areas in the world that have forest cover exceeding 70% with endemic woody plants numbering more than 15,000 species (see Figure 1). These areas are then categorized as Global Tropical Wilderness Areas, where conservation of biodiversity must be intensified. Besides New Guinea Tropical Wilderness Area (which includes Papua New Guinea and Indonesia’s Papua Province), the other two are Amazon Tropical Wilderness Area and Congo Tropical Wilderness Area.

As a bioregion containing exceptionally high biodiversity, Papua faces various problems in managing its biodiversity as well as its natural resources in general. The main problem is the destruction and reduction of natural habitats resulting from forest logging, forest conversion for plantations and agricultural land, wildlife trade, poor law enforcement, limited allocation of fund and resources, and unequally-distributed natural resource management. Another important problem is the high dependency of communities on direct utilization of natural resources while their capacity to do scientific planning is very low, and government’s willingness to manage biodiversity in a just and equitable (for both present and future generations) way is lacking.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity covers genetic, species, ecosystem, and cultural diversities. The more diverse the genes, species and ecosystems are, the stronger the nature’s carrying capacity is. The stronger the nature’s carrying capacity is, the more stably the environment supports human life.

The land of Papua contains exceptionally high biodiversity, both in flora and fauna. We have flora and fauna endemic to Papua such as the richness of the tropical forests. The high biodiversity of Papua’s forests are a result of its proximity to Australia. Papua has diverse orchid types of Orchidaceae family, which is distributed from coastal areas (brackish forests), swamps to mountainous areas. Being epiphytic, they grow on other trees, rocks or humus soil of primary forests. Since the Dutch colonization era, orchids have received much attention and many botanists and biologists have made expeditions to Papua to collect Papua’s orchids. In addition to orchids, we have woody plant species of various types and classes.

Papua, which is a transitional region between Asia and Australia, also contains exotic, beautiful and endemic fauna such as bird of paradise (Paradisedae), tree kangaroo (Borcopsis mulleri), cassowary (Casuarius asuarius), Soa-soa (Hydrosaurus amboinensis), Maleo bird (Megachephalon maleo), and many others.

Financing

Audit & Reviews

The GCF Knowledge Database will provide links to relevant audits and reviews of REDD related activities in GCF states and provinces. In addition to making this information available as part of the database, the information generated through relevant audits and reviews will be used to update and improve the quality of the information in the database and to provide feedback to GCF states and provinces as they move forward in developing programs to reduce emissions from land use and deforestation.

[For now, this is the same on each state/province page.]

Registry

Biodiversity covers genetic, species, ecosystem, and cultural diversities. The more diverse the genes, species and ecosystems are, the stronger the nature’s carrying capacity is. The stronger the nature’s carrying capacity is, the more stably the environment supports human life.

The land of Papua contains exceptionally high biodiversity, both in flora and fauna. We have flora and fauna endemic to Papua such as the richness of the tropical forests. The high biodiversity of Papua’s forests are a result of its proximity to Australia. Papua has diverse orchid types of Orchidaceae family, which is distributed from coastal areas (brackish forests), swamps to mountainous areas. Being epiphytic, they grow on other trees, rocks or humus soil of primary forests. Since the Dutch colonization era, orchids have received much attention and many botanists and biologists have made expeditions to Papua to collect Papua’s orchids. In addition to orchids, we have woody plant species of various types and classes.

Papua, which is a transitional region between Asia and Australia, also contains exotic, beautiful and endemic fauna such as bird of paradise (Paradisedae), tree kangaroo (Borcopsis mulleri), cassowary (Casuarius asuarius), Soa-soa (Hydrosaurus amboinensis), Maleo bird (Megachephalon maleo), and many others.

Financing

Audit & Reviews

The GCF Knowledge Database will provide links to relevant audits and reviews of REDD related activities in GCF states and provinces. In addition to making this information available as part of the database, the information generated through relevant audits and reviews will be used to update and improve the quality of the information in the database and to provide feedback to GCF states and provinces as they move forward in developing programs to reduce emissions from land use and deforestation.

[For now, this is the same on each state/province page.]

Registry

In addition to the high biodiversity at taxonomic level, Papua contains diverse ecosystems, from coral reefs, mangrove forests, savannah and monsoon forests, lowland tropical forests to montane and alphine ecosystems (5,000 m above sea level).

Myers (1988) stated that some 90% of woody plants in New Guinea (including Indonesia’s Papua) were endemic. Out of 50 bird species found on the island, 50% was endemic to Papua.

Up to now, no uniformity has been in place with regard to classification of the ecosystem types in Papua, and neither have their respective areas and distribution. Despite this, Petocz (1989) distinguished Papua’s terrestrial ecosystems into 7 main ones:

• Mangrove forests

• Swamps

• Lowland tropical forests (0-100 m)

• Lower montane forests (100-1,000 m)

• High montane forests (3,000-4,000 m)

• Alphine ecosystem (> 4,000 m)

Some of the existing classifications do not provide clear limitation of ecosystem types. This nonuniformity poses some problems, particularly when analyzing forest degradation rate. Most general and ecosystem distribution analyses are still dominated by forest cover analyses, and despite this, no agreement has been reached about classification of forest types and their respective distribution. The output of the analyses of satellite images during 1999-2000 by the Forestry Planning Agency (Badan Planologi), Forest Watch Indonesia and the Conservation International showed that the total size of Papua’s forests stood at 40,856,294,871 hectares. Based on forest functions or uses, Papua’s forests are classified into 6 groups, whose respective sizes are shown in Table 2,

Biogeographically, Papua is divided into 4 main regions (Petocz, 1989), comprising 9 biogeographical subunits, namely:

1. Eastern foothills, comprising the Cyclops Mountains; the Foja- Gauttier Mountains; and the van Rees Mountains.

2. Bird Head Peninsula, comprising the Tamrau and Arfak Mountains; Wondiwoi Bay and the Wandamen Mountains.

3. Southern areas, comprising the Fak-Fak Mountains and the Kumawa Mountains; and

4. Offshore islands, i.e. the islands of Waigeo, Batanta, Salawati, Misool and Yapen; as well as some in the ocean such as Biak- Supriori and Numfor.

Various documents on global conservation strategies show that Papua is one of the priority areas for conservation. The analyses by conservation experts and scientists at the Conservation International conclude that there are only three tropical areas in the world that have forest cover exceeding 70% with endemic woody plants numbering more than 15,000 species (see Figure 1). These areas are then categorized as Global Tropical Wilderness Areas, where conservation of biodiversity must be intensified. Besides New Guinea Tropical Wilderness Area (which includes Papua New Guinea and Indonesia’s Papua Province), the other two are Amazon Tropical Wilderness Area and Congo Tropical Wilderness Area.

As a bioregion containing exceptionally high biodiversity, Papua faces various problems in managing its biodiversity as well as its natural resources in general. The main problem is the destruction and reduction of natural habitats resulting from forest logging, forest conversion for plantations and agricultural land, wildlife trade, poor law enforcement, limited allocation of fund and resources, and unequally-distributed natural resource management. Another important problem is the high dependency of communities on direct utilization of natural resources while their capacity to do scientific planning is very low, and government’s willingness to manage biodiversity in a just and equitable (for both present and future generations) way is lacking.

Sources

Current REDD+ Program Progress
1. SRAP Papua 2014.
REDD+ Programs
2. SRAP Papua 2014.